About 2/3rds of people below $30k in income drink soda, while only about half of people over $75k do. Indeed, at least in the US, the poor are better customers than the well off. There is approximately nobody who sees their ads that is so permanently destitute that they will never have the opportunity to buy a soda. > Coke doesn't consider an ad vended to a broke person to have zero value Public radio, another medium with zero marginal cost, has been giving away their content for decades. E.g., the NYT can happily give away a ton of pageviews to non-subscribers as long as they keep their subscriber base up. But with zero marginal cost, you have have to find some way to cover your expenses, and then you can give away the rest as a public good. The tragedy of the commons applies when there's a non-zero marginal cost. The Ad Council's products are generally not about getting a broke person to spend money, but to shape their behavior ("this is your brain on drugs," "#DanceLikeaDad," etc.).
#Adblock ultimate firefox review free
Coke doesn't consider an ad vended to a broke person to have zero value, because their product becomes the thing that person will ask for if someone offers them a free beverage of their choice, and it becomes the thing they'll generally recognize as "a soda" over alternatives when the topic comes up at all. In addition to direct encouragement for consumers to buy something (what is called "conversion"), advertising is also used to shape public perception and garner general interest. > Further, the attention of a perfectly broke has a value of zero As a result, only pages that can get "stuck in" alongside revenue-positive content (or pages on a whole server operating at a loss with revenue generated via some other source) can survive (i.e. The marginal cost to render another page is zero, but if 100% of pages pay nothing, the server is run at a loss. > The marginal cost of rendering another web page is zero, so economically there's no reason for them to pay anything. Will the government move to rule adblocking illegal? Will websites engage in sophisticated technical anti-adblock measures? Will companies like Google and Twitter give up on advertising and shutter their existing businesses? All I can say is that the current situation doesn't seem sustainable. The real question is what will happen next. And that adblock penetration rate increases year over year due to efforts like this. Once 80-90% of users use adblock I don't see how these sites will survive.
However, this calculus changes quite a bit when adblock penetration reaches high enough levels. Currently, there hasn't been too much of an effect because the adblock usage rate is low enough that adblocking free riders don't cause enough harm. Adblockers like uBlock Origin hurt these sites by deriving them of revenue. Question for HN: What will happen to the web when uBlock Origin becomes prevelent enough? Currently the vast majority of the internet is completely (or mostly) ad funded: Twitter, Facebook, newspapers, Reddit, YouTube, etc etc.
0 kommentar(er)
